Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

You keep insisting that I must reveal to you -- in a public forum, no less -- all of
the inner details of my business? How mu c h do I pay in rent? Do I allow novice
paragliders to train under instructor supervision? Did I attempt to charge Dave B.
$100? Would you also like to know my PIN code, or perhaps some intimate family
details as well?

I know, I know -- I operate a business that's located on leased public park land,
so somehow you imagine that gives you the "right" to know every detail of my
business (not correct). You also seem to imagine (again, incorrectly) that it's
somehow right for you to conduct a campaign of false and defamatory attacks in
public forums against a business that you dislike -- namely mine. But I'm pretty
much finished with humoring your crazed obsession in this matter, and don't
anticipate making more posts after this one in response to your blather.

I will take this one shot, however, at offering up a fairly complete set of facts
and analysis here. Its not really for Bob. I don't much care what he says or
thinks -- Bob, you've driven any such concern from me with your constant barrage.
This is more for the bystanders to this soap opera, and truth be told, is also some
for my own enjoyment.

Do you know the old saying: "When you wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty, but
the pig has fun!" Bob, I only hope that all the pilots who love to fly at the
gliderport that you have misguided, maligned and aggravated have at least given you
some fun. I'd hate to think the distress that you've gone out of your way to
inflict on others was a total waste -- at least someone should have enjoyed it.
Meanwhile, you're still welcome to come out and fly at the gliderport anytime, Bob,
since at least that way, we can both be having fun by flying!

2. USHPA Regional Director Job Description: "Defame and Harass Local Flying Sites"

Strictly as a rhetorical question for the benefit of others who may be reading, how
does constant harassment and defamation of my business at the gliderport in public
forums jibe with your role as regional director? Please, don't both with the
rationalizations about how you must crusade against evil -- we've all heard your
self-delusion. What I'd like to say is that I am very open to suggestions to
improve things -- I welcome such suggestions. Criticism, even? Sure, when I'm in a
good mood Suggestions that the business model is flawed at the gliderport,
and should be completely changed doing away with my business in the process? Well,
I'm less enthusiastic about that . But even then, I welcome rational discussion,
despite my disagreement .

Bob, I would have (and at times actually did ) support some of your positions -- or
at least, found myself on the same side of an issue as you, anyway (you haven't
really accomplished anything for the benefit of all pilots at the gliderport,
instead, you've only tried to claim credit for the tireless work of others that you
actually obstructed -- but that's another topic). I only wish I could have been in
agreement with you more often. But your destructive approach, no matter how much
you justify it in your mind as necessary to stop whatever evils you see at the
gliderport (or in USHPA, or whatever is your target de jure), you just operate on
too much of a constant attack-mode for me to go along.

You r actions have put at risk one of the world's truly great flying sites, the TP
gliderport, no matter how much you delude yourself into thinking your actions will
improve the place. In the considered judgment of many people whose opinion I value,
your have, done considerably more harm than good overall to the site and to the
local enjoyment of the sport. Though I will give you this -- you've certainly
livened up a lot of blogs and forums.

I can almost hear you typing a reply to this point already -- you've been nothing if
not consistent in dismissing and discounting anyone who disagrees with you as being
a "David Jebb loyalist," whatever the hell that means. So let me anticipate this
point for you. Some of the people who I refer to above (i.e., those with sound
judgment, not you) have told me they disliked David J., and at least one that I know
of even refused to fly at the gliderport while David J. was running the place. Yet
they still believe that your relentless agitation and attack is a "net negative" for
the sport.

Ironically, I've noticed that your all-to-frequent attempts to discredit dissenting
opinions by accusing people of undying love of the former concessionaire, often
appear in the same posts where you protest that "its not personal" and "It doesn't
matter who runs the place, the model is just wrong" (I'm paraphrasing, here). This
seems rather self-contradictory to me: when it's your arguments, they're "not
personal," but arguments in disagreement with you must of course be "personal" and
based on misplaced personal loyalty, and therefore are invalid. Self-deception
here, if not outright dishonesty in your tactics.

3. For The Record...

Notwithstanding the above points (i.e., that its none of your damn business, and
that your approach to the gliderport has been wrongful and seriously put at risk a
great flying site) -- I will take one more stab at some actual facts, at least for
the benefit of others who may be following this reality-show.

1) Yes, the charge is $35 for a non-instructional tandems. No, the lease does not
specify $25, you're simply wrong about that, Bob . Do you know why you're wrong?
The lease was amended by a letter from the City to increase all the allowed fees
(including tandem fee to $35), many years ago.

You present yourself on these local forums as such a damn expert on my lease, but
you don't seem to have a clue that a lease written more than 11 years ago could have
been amended or supplemented in the intervening years. You spout lies and falsehood
like you are certain of the facts -- when you are certainly wrong.

I thought that your last foot-in-mouth nonsense about how I "must be violating the
lease" by operating a paragliding school, would have taught you more caution -- but
apparently its not your style to learn from experience. Even though I feel no
responsibility to answer to your constant attacks (if for no other reason than it
would take so much time, I'd never be able to fly), I eventually posted a few days
ago the fact the City declared in writing, to the Soaring Council, that a
paragliding school is within the scope of the lease at the gliderport, and further
explicitly giving permission for Air California Adventure staff (ONLY) to conduct
paragliding and hang gliding instructional flights at the gliderport, as a way to
manage and control risk and liability for the City.

But what is your response to having your lie about the paragliding school exposed?
You've decided to make up a new one -- you now insist that the rates I charge are a
lease violation. Either you're lying again, or just incapable of learning from you
mistakes. I don't know which, and don't much care anymore.

2) The $35 tandem fee does not apply to commercial instructional tandems. Perhaps
you didn't read my last post -- but there is a BIG difference when T-3s operate
commercial tandems (i.e., fly non-USHPA carded passengers). It is NOT the same as a
T-1/2/3 flying a USHPA carded passenger -- its apples and oranges. Its illegal at
the gliderport to operate a commercial tandem without: a) City permission; b) a huge
insurance policy that names the City as an insured; and c) a change to City
lease/policy . Without changing the law and City policy/contracts (that is
certainly outside my control), the effect is that anyone who wants to fly tandems
for non-USHPA carded or rated passengers at the gliderport must work for me (for
example, as an independent contractor ), or they will be breaking the law and
putting the site in jeopardy. I explained all this to you, and your friend David B,
repeatedly and in writing. Do you just not want to hear it, or are you incapable of
understanding it?

As I said in my last post, that you chose to ignore, I offered David B. the same
terms as my other employees/ contractors when he came to the gliderport unannounced
and wanted to fly six commercial tandems. How much more "fair" can I be? I was
well within my rights to refuse him entirely. I don't have to take him on as an
independent contractor just because he wants to be hired. For the same reason, the
$35 tandem day-use fee doesn't apply -- he was seeking to operate a commercial
business, which he can only (by law) do if I were to take him on as an independent
contractor, and so the terms that apply my business terms. If I choose to, I can
keep $100 and allow him to keep $75 from a commercial hang gliding tandem -- that's
my business decision. He can refuse or accept as he wishes, but regardless its none
of your business. What I did do, was to offer him the same deal as all my
independent contractors, and even invited him to discuss with me a more regular
working arrangement at the gliderport.

Not only did he refuse, but he was nasty and belligerent about it. And then said
he'd fly anyway, and insisted he had a "right" to essentially free-ride on my
business (and incidentally, break the law, which I explained to him, and possibly
close the site down permanently if caught, and jeopardize my lease if I allowed him
to do so). Somehow, as regional director, you seem to think that's a good thing for
the sport to risk all that? Even if I didn't have a business at stake, speaking as
a pilot I just cannot agree with you. And given David B's attitude and approach,
I'm not much interested in having him "work" for me, even as an informal independent
contractor anymore. With your help and encouragement, he's managed to burn that
bridge with me.

I also see from your last post that you are outraged, OUTRAGED, by the fact there's
a financial barrier to anyone who wants to flying a commercial tandem business at
the gliderport in competition with my business. Especially one that can be applied
so "arbitrarily" by such a dirty small-business owner! As I've explained to you
many times, but you just don't seem to get, its not a financial barrier, its the
LAW. I cannot arbitrarily change the law, the lease, and City policy to make you
feel better Bob, no matter how much you sulk and whine (careful, you're starting to
turn blue, holding your breath like that). As the law and City rules stand now, if
someone wants to run a commercial business at the Gliderport, it must be as part of
my business.

The net result of all this is you are basically asserting that I should not be able
to choose who gets to work for me, and instead should be forced to accept as a
independent contractor or employee every potential tandem instructor who shows up
and demands to run a business at the site. That's just bullshit. Last I heard, we
still live in a capitalist country, and I cannot be forced to hire someone just
because someone (you) think its fair . Nor can you dictate what amount I keep from
any goods or services that are sold by my business , and how much my workers keep
(i.e., how much my commercial tandem pilots keep of each flight/sale, and how much
is paid to the business to cover overhead and expenses).

3) By the way, in case it has escaped your notice, David Jebb and his entire family
sold their interest in the gliderport business to me in 2008, and he no longer works
at the gliderport. Neither he, nor anyone in his family, has any ongoing interest
in the business as owner, officer, director, or even regular employee. His son,
Gabe, is an USHPA Tandem Administrator and Instructor for paragliding, and in that
capacity has taught some clinics in cooperation with me from time to time since I
took over the business. And David even came out to fly once or twice (oh no, the
boogeyman!). But they have no interest in the business. You have been at the
gliderport at least an order of magnitude (that's 10x, by the way) more often than
all the Jebbs combined in the past year, and should have noticed that. What else do
you need to satisfy your strange obsession, Bob?

4. The Faux Issue Of The Day Is...?

Lets cut through the B.S, and games -- what's the real issue with the gliderport? I
see some consistent themes that have arise in your diatribes, but many of them just
don't ring true upon closer examination:

a) David Jebb is Really Scary. David Jebb was a bad person, acted unfairly, and
hurt you and your friend David B. Boo Hoo.

OK, I got that one. My understanding is that both sides were at least partly in the
wrong on those old issues. But its water over the dam, so lets move on, shall we?

b) TPGP is Mean To Hang Gliders. Or, at least biased against hang glider pilots,
right? Wrong!

The facts just don't support this -- because its not true. Hang gliders are always
welcome. I even host annual hang glider races. Hangs are charged the same, and
treated the same, as paras. You've been at the gliderport with hang glider events
with your own private club on many occasions, and while there have been times when I
really wasn't personally all that happy to see you, you're still welcome. Its
ironic, when I think about bias, several sites in California come to mind that
ban/actively discourage paragliders, not hang gliders. As regional director, I'm
surprised that you're not discussing those sites, given your vocal commitment to
fairness for all.

But alas, its true that the gliderport is discriminatory in one regard: rated P-3
and P-4 pilots can fly at the site, but only rated H-4s can fly... oops except
that's not true, either. Sorry to burst your bubble.

For some time, we have allowed high-time H-3s who take a lesson and get a local
skills sign-off with Steve S. (our fantastic hang instructor extraordinaire) to fly
at the gliderport -- either with an H-3 plus the sign-off, or by taking a few more
lessons as needed to get an H-4 sign off. Yes, it sucks that H-3s have to prove
themselves (and pay a more expensive lesson fee to do so, unlike P-3s). Sorry,
that's the way it is -- if this is the most unfair thing in your life, you're damned
lucky.

And further, its been explained by others repeatedly (on this and other forums), the
reason for the advanced hang rating requirement at the site is not something that
the concessionaire asked for, or even has discretion to change -- it was asserted by
the City long ago, and the City (and insurance company, frankly) are the only ones
who can decide to change it -- there's no "bias" by the concessionaire at the root
of this.

By the way, its a bigger question (that I won't explore in detail now) whether
low-time H-3s would be a good idea at the site at all -- I can see pros and cons,
but think on balance the safety risks with a crowded beach below, and so many types
of fliers above (and lets face it, a very sensitive and risk-averse City owner of
the site) likely outweigh the benefits. Although as a pilot and a businessman I
tend to think more the merrier! I'm open to reason on the point (though as I said,
its not up to me, and would require City action to change), if only I had a Regional
Director who acted reasonably towards me.

c) I'm Going To Hold My Breath Until You Agree To Open A Beginner HG School, or At
Least Close The PG School. I'm not even sure what this line of "reasoning" is
supposed to prove. That there shouldn't be a paragliding school? That there should
be a hang gliding school? That if there is a paragliding school, then it must be
safe for low-time H-3s to fly unsupervised? All of these are false equivalencies,
and just plain foolish.

It is irrelevant to the H-3 vs H-4 level of the site that the City agreed to allow a
paragliding school, but not a hang gliding school (note: student pilots less than
P-3 always fly under radio contact and visual supervision of an instructor at the
gliderport at all times, by the way). As a business, I must admit there's more in
it for me to teach paragliding, given the greater numbers involved (for reasons we
can celebrate or lament, but it is a fact). And do any established SoCal hang
instructors really want more competition? But that doesn't mean that there is any
hostility or bias toward the teaching of hang gliding, I'm just not at all sure the
gliderport would be a good place to teach novice hang glider pilots.

The real reason why it makes sense to have a paragliding school and not a hang
school for beginners at the gliderport -- is that beginners have a bigger chance to
end up on the beach (this isn't a gentle training slope -- remember? Its a 350'
sheer cliff). It would deny reality to say otherwise. Let me ask you, honestly,
if you were enjoying yourself on the beach (I won't ask how -- after all, it is
Blacks Beach we're talking about), and could choose between being accidentally
struck by a student with a 30 pound mass of nylon fabric moving at 15 mph, or a 70
pound mass of aluminum tubes moving at 30 mph, which would you choose? I know, we'd
all choose neither, and of course we have trained all student pilots so well that
that this never happens! But lets face reality -- it is a risk. I can guarantee
that the City is well aware of this fact, as is any insurance carrier.

5. The Real Issue, But False Options

Bob, once all the mistakes, lies, and hyperbole are stripped away from your constant
rants and campaigns, my understanding of your position boils down to this:

You feel you and some of your friends have been treated unfairly, and think that
your personal experiences show there is a general problem with the gliderport
(though there's no evidence of this -- NONE -- except for your provocation), and
more specifically you seem to want:
1. any properly certified instructor should be able to fly commercial tandems at
the gliderport at will;
2. any properly certified instructor shouldn't have to pay anything more than a
nominal fee to the concessionaire, and especially not if that the fee is not fixed
and guaranteed to be the same for all tandem instructors who show up;
3. and that its unfair that the concessionaire is also the flight director with the
power to revoke flight privileges.

Maybe I misunderstood, but that's what I hear, when I strip away the noise. Even if
these were conceded to be potential problems for the sake of argument (and
superficially, at least, they seem to be worth exploring), what are the proposed
solution options?

I've seen you propose, or at least imply, several possible solutions via your
various posts over the past years. Admittedly, I'm reading between the lines here,
to try and reach some reasonable inferences -- I'm not quoting you exactly. I can
only say that these options are what you've succeeded in communicating to me,
whether you meant to or not. I'm sure you'll inform the world if I misunderstood
your meaning, and correct things (or at least twist my words to be an attack on me,
you have a real talent for that).

Option 1: Nobody gets a sole concession, or if there must be only one concession,
anybody else should be able to also set up a competing tandem business at the
gliderport, at will.

This option will simply not work. The City has, and will, insist on a single point
of contact to be liable at the gliderport, and pay for all the required permits,
maintenance, support, etc. That's just a fact.

And even if by some crazy chance the City were to allow anyone who wants (with
insurance no doubt) to set up a business at will, quite frankly the concession will
be broke inside a few months (or will be making too little money, so that its not
worth the effort anymore, and so quit), leaving the City with nobody to hold
accountable -- and that will absolutely close the site to all flying.

So scratch that plan, unless your obsession has driven you to prefer to have the
gliderport closed, Bob, rather than to allow someone else to continue to run it (I
hope that's not your position, but I fear it quite possibly is).

By the way, such a plan is actually the unfairness -- not the fact that your friend
can't free-ride on another's business. Here's what I mean by that: you had
advocated this option in various guises in the past by falsely arguing the
concessionaire got a sweetheart deal with the City (sometimes you even falsely
implied or stated it was corrupt), because the lease calls for no monthly rent. You
implied this was exploiting and/or blocking anyone else who wanted to operate a
business at the gliderport in order to maximize its own profit, especially since it
has no costs and so could easily handle any competition if it wasn't so greedy
(sorry, paraphrasing again here). Your premise was simply wrong, on multiple
grounds.

The lease actually obligates the concessionaire to pay quite a bit -- just a few
examples are property tax on improvements, insurance, toilets, maintenance,
full-time staff, and even rent for some uses on the property (though not presently
for general flight park operations, its true). In fact, in recent years, over
$150,000 in City-required permits and environmental study costs alone have been
incurred and paid by the concessionaire. Would you like to reimburse me for that
money, please? If not, then bugger off. Bob, the fact you read a copy of an
11-year old document does NOT mean you have all the facts -- stop spreading lies
about my business.

Also, while there might be a WalMart and CostCo in the same town competing with each
other, that's not the same at all as the WalMart opening a store in the CostCo
parking lot (especially if CostCo is the only one who has to pay all the costs to
permit, clean, insure and maintain the grounds -- meaning WalMart is free-riding).
That's just crazy stupid talk. Where's the "fairness" in that bullshit?

Option 2: You and/or your friends take over, and be the new sole
concessionaire/flight director.

You've certainly put a great deal of energy into defaming my business -- you've even
posted to the local newspaper and addressed the City Counsel about how badly my
business is run. I suppose that's your way to try and destroy someone else's
business, so you can move in -- its not very ethical, and is one that puts the site
at risk of closing by having the City decide its not worth the constant
noise/hassle. Nor is it something I appreciate in my USHPA "regional director."

Wouldn't it be more honest to simply put in the winning bid in the next competitive
RFP the City holds to choose a new concessionaire/lessee (expected in the next year
or two), and compete for the business with integrity, rather than constantly
bad-mouthing the current business? I guess you don't operate that way.

Regardless, if you do pursue this option, then all your blathering about how unfair
it is to have only one concessionaire at the gliderport would certainly be exposed
for the hypocrisy that it is, since you'd become the new exclusive operator
yourself. So either you're an unethical hypocrite, or this option should be
off-the-table.

Option 3: You and/or your friends take over some group or committee, that in-turn
can become a controlling oversight body, to dictate whatever terms you like onto the
Concessionaire/Flight Director (the indirect control model).

I know that you've also been heavily engaged in this process for some time -- no
need to belabor your efforts here, many of us are constantly reminded of them. To
many in the local flying community , your energy and obsessive focus in this regard
are as notorious as they are obnoxious and disruptive. But this is a fools errand.
To begin with, it seems highly unlikely that an organization controlled by an
obsessed fool would render more "fair" and "less arbitrary" decisions.

More to the point, the only organization that can dictate substantive business terms
to a private business at the gliderport is the City, and then only by virtue of
mutually agreed contract terms in the lease (or by general laws/regulations, of
course). The Soaring Council or other organization could advise the City, but
ultimately its just advice to local government that itself can only negotiate terms
with the lessee. I suppose if the City felt pressured enough, they could insist on
such onerous business terms that the concessionaire is driven out of business -- but
there we are again, Bob -- drive out a business, and thus make it more likely the
site is shut down for all flying. It really starts to look like "if I can't be in
charge, nobody should be able to fly" is your real objective, Bob!

But what about indirect control over non-business decisions? Perhaps, you and your
pals can take over some organization like the Soaring Council, or bully and threaten
some other organization like the Park Advisory Board to take on such an overreach of
their City charter -- and then at least try to exert veto power over decisions of
the concessionaire acting as Flight Director on such issues a revocation of flight
privileges. That certainly seems consistent with your complaints over the past
year, such as demanding an appeal body and a veto power over flight revocation
decisions.

Bob, I actually do sympathize with you on this point. David Jebb was mean to you
(even if you did provoke it, and even deserve it). And superficially at least, it
does seem like there is an arbitrary power held by the Flight Director, without
sufficient due process to appeal or overturn such decisions. But your arguments are
flawed:

1. There is really no due process concern, since a revocation of flight privileges
at the gliderport does not deprive a pilot of flying in any way at any other site
-- even other local sites. Also, if the City feels the Flight Director has abused
his power by consistently revoking flight privileges without good cause, it could
initiate proceedings and ultimately even find the Flight Director/Concessionaire
in breach of the lease. So this seems to be mostly just your sour grapes, and not
really a problem in practice.

2. No organization has the authority under its charter (that I'm aware of, anyway)
to dictate to the Flight Director and reverse his decisions on revocation of
flight privileges. At best, the Soaring Council (or other potential body) can act
as a place to air complaints and even recommend solutions (which I actually think
is a good idea, and I would be happy as concessionaire to listen to
recommendations at such a forum, and have it be a place for pilots to state their
concerns about having flight privileges revoked) -- but not veto or power to
dictate a decision.

3. The current structure of the gliderport operation does not allow for any other
body to veto/override Flight Director decisions. City ordinance states that an
Airport Director has the authority to restrict flight operations for good cause,
and the lease specifically states that the Concessionaire is the Flight Director
at the gliderport. But more practically, the concessionaire must insure and also
indemnify the City from any liability. So if the concessionaire, acting as Flight
Director, cannot revoke flight privileges for someone deemed unsafe, then it would
find itself in the position of having to pay to insure, and be held potentially
liable for, a person's negligent conduct with no way to control that risk. The
Flight Director/concessionaire could not control its own risk, but would still be
stuck paying if the shit hit the fan. Thus, the entire system of insurance and
indemnification breaks down, the concessionaire will be forced to refuse to accept
liability, and -- you guessed, the park would be closed to all flying.

The End (is near).

I've typed waaaay more than most people want to read/need to know. Bottom line, if
the City wants to budget and pay for its own independent Flight Director, and also
pay for its own insurance, and accept its own liability, and pay for all its own
permitting, etc. -- then the Concessionaire (I, or whomever follows me) can afford
to be just one more business among many, competing with all tandem instructors (and
other businesses) at the gliderport, and accepting the decisions of an independent
Flight Director or the Soaring Council or whomever ultimately controls flight
operations. No problem. If that's your ultimate objective -- then have at it. Of
course, the City budget being so strong, that's likely to happen any day now, right?

No? It seem the only realistic and practical way to accomplish your plan, Bob, is
for you to give the City a millions of dollars to make all that happen. Put up, or
shut up, Bob.

Those who can, fly. Those who can't, blog about flying! Here's hoping the Spring
winds let us all spend more time flying, and less time at a computer!

Robin

c) I'm Going To Hold My Breath Until You Agree To Open A Beginner HG School, or At
Least Close The PG School. I'm not even sure what this line of "reasoning" is
supposed to prove. That there shouldn't be a paragliding school? That there should
be a hang gliding school? That if there is a paragliding school, then it must be
safe for low-time H-3s to fly unsupervised? All of these are false equivalencies,
and just plain foolish.

It is irrelevant to the H-3 vs H-4 level of the site that the City agreed to allow a
paragliding school, but not a hang gliding school (note: student pilots less than
P-3 always fly under radio contact and visual supervision of an instructor at the
gliderport at all times, by the way). As a business, I must admit there's more in
it for me to teach paragliding, given the greater numbers involved (for reasons we
can celebrate or lament, but it is a fact). And do any established SoCal hang
instructors really want more competition? But that doesn't mean that there is any
hostility or bias toward the teaching of hang gliding, I'm just not at all sure the
gliderport would be a good place to teach novice hang glider pilots.

The real reason why it makes sense to have a paragliding school and not a hang
school for beginners at the gliderport -- is that beginners have a bigger chance to
end up on the beach (this isn't a gentle training slope -- remember? Its a 350'
sheer cliff). It would deny reality to say otherwise. Let me ask you, honestly,
if you were enjoying yourself on the beach (I won't ask how -- after all, it is
Blacks Beach we're talking about), and could choose between being accidentally
struck by a student with a 30 pound mass of nylon fabric moving at 15 mph, or a 70
pound mass of aluminum tubes moving at 30 mph, which would you choose? I know, we'd
all choose neither, and of course we have trained all student pilots so well that
that this never happens! But lets face reality -- it is a risk. I can guarantee
that the City is well aware of this fact, as is any insurance carrier.

5. The Real Issue, But False Options

Bob, once all the mistakes, lies, and hyperbole are stripped away from your constant
rants and campaigns, my understanding of your position boils down to this:

You feel you and some of your friends have been treated unfairly, and think that
your personal experiences show there is a general problem with the gliderport
(though there's no evidence of this -- NONE -- except for your provocation), and
more specifically you seem to want:
1. any properly certified instructor should be able to fly commercial tandems at
the gliderport at will;
2. any properly certified instructor shouldn't have to pay anything more than a
nominal fee to the concessionaire, and especially not if that the fee is not fixed
and guaranteed to be the same for all tandem instructors who show up;
3. and that its unfair that the concessionaire is also the flight director with the
power to revoke flight privileges.

Maybe I misunderstood, but that's what I hear, when I strip away the noise. Even if
these were conceded to be potential problems for the sake of argument (and
superficially, at least, they seem to be worth exploring), what are the proposed
solution options?

I've seen you propose, or at least imply, several possible solutions via your
various posts over the past years. Admittedly, I'm reading between the lines here,
to try and reach some reasonable inferences -- I'm not quoting you exactly. I can
only say that these options are what you've succeeded in communicating to me,
whether you meant to or not. I'm sure you'll inform the world if I misunderstood
your meaning, and correct things (or at least twist my words to be an attack on me,
you have a real talent for that).

Option 1: Nobody gets a sole concession, or if there must be only one concession,
anybody else should be able to also set up a competing tandem business at the
gliderport, at will.

This option will simply not work. The City has, and will, insist on a single point
of contact to be liable at the gliderport, and pay for all the required permits,
maintenance, support, etc. That's just a fact.

And even if by some crazy chance the City were to allow anyone who wants (with
insurance no doubt) to set up a business at will, quite frankly the concession will
be broke inside a few months (or will be making too little money, so that its not
worth the effort anymore, and so quit), leaving the City with nobody to hold
accountable -- and that will absolutely close the site to all flying.

So scratch that plan, unless your obsession has driven you to prefer to have the
gliderport closed, Bob, rather than to allow someone else to continue to run it (I
hope that's not your position, but I fear it quite possibly is).

By the way, such a plan is actually the unfairness -- not the fact that your friend
can't free-ride on another's business. Here's what I mean by that: you had
advocated this option in various guises in the past by falsely arguing the
concessionaire got a sweetheart deal with the City (sometimes you even falsely
implied or stated it was corrupt), because the lease calls for no monthly rent. You
implied this was exploiting and/or blocking anyone else who wanted to operate a
business at the gliderport in order to maximize its own profit, especially since it
has no costs and so could easily handle any competition if it wasn't so greedy
(sorry, paraphrasing again here). Your premise was simply wrong, on multiple
grounds.

The lease actually obligates the concessionaire to pay quite a bit -- just a few
examples are property tax on improvements, insurance, toilets, maintenance,
full-time staff, and even rent for some uses on the property (though not presently
for general flight park operations, its true). In fact, in recent years, over
$150,000 in City-required permits and environmental study costs alone have been
incurred and paid by the concessionaire. Would you like to reimburse me for that
money, please? If not, then bugger off. Bob, the fact you read a copy of an
11-year old document does NOT mean you have all the facts -- stop spreading lies
about my business.

Also, while there might be a WalMart and CostCo in the same town competing with each
other, that's not the same at all as the WalMart opening a store in the CostCo
parking lot (especially if CostCo is the only one who has to pay all the costs to
permit, clean, insure and maintain the grounds -- meaning WalMart is free-riding).
That's just crazy stupid talk. Where's the "fairness" in that bullshit?

Option 2: You and/or your friends take over, and be the new sole
concessionaire/flight director.

You've certainly put a great deal of energy into defaming my business -- you've even
posted to the local newspaper and addressed the City Counsel about how badly my
business is run. I suppose that's your way to try and destroy someone else's
business, so you can move in -- its not very ethical, and is one that puts the site
at risk of closing by having the City decide its not worth the constant
noise/hassle. Nor is it something I appreciate in my USHPA "regional director."

Wouldn't it be more honest to simply put in the winning bid in the next competitive
RFP the City holds to choose a new concessionaire/lessee (expected in the next year
or two), and compete for the business with integrity, rather than constantly
bad-mouthing the current business? I guess you don't operate that way.

Regardless, if you do pursue this option, then all your blathering about how unfair
it is to have only one concessionaire at the gliderport would certainly be exposed
for the hypocrisy that it is, since you'd become the new exclusive operator
yourself. So either you're an unethical hypocrite, or this option should be
off-the-table.

Option 3: You and/or your friends take over some group or committee, that in-turn
can become a controlling oversight body, to dictate whatever terms you like onto the
Concessionaire/Flight Director (the indirect control model).

I know that you've also been heavily engaged in this process for some time -- no
need to belabor your efforts here, many of us are constantly reminded of them. To
many in the local flying community , your energy and obsessive focus in this regard
are as notorious as they are obnoxious and disruptive. But this is a fools errand.
To begin with, it seems highly unlikely that an organization controlled by an
obsessed fool would render more "fair" and "less arbitrary" decisions.

More to the point, the only organization that can dictate substantive business terms
to a private business at the gliderport is the City, and then only by virtue of
mutually agreed contract terms in the lease (or by general laws/regulations, of
course). The Soaring Council or other organization could advise the City, but
ultimately its just advice to local government that itself can only negotiate terms
with the lessee. I suppose if the City felt pressured enough, they could insist on
such onerous business terms that the concessionaire is driven out of business -- but
there we are again, Bob -- drive out a business, and thus make it more likely the
site is shut down for all flying. It really starts to look like "if I can't be in
charge, nobody should be able to fly" is your real objective, Bob!

But what about indirect control over non-business decisions? Perhaps, you and your
pals can take over some organization like the Soaring Council, or bully and threaten
some other organization like the Park Advisory Board to take on such an overreach of
their City charter -- and then at least try to exert veto power over decisions of
the concessionaire acting as Flight Director on such issues a revocation of flight
privileges. That certainly seems consistent with your complaints over the past
year, such as demanding an appeal body and a veto power over flight revocation
decisions.

Bob, I actually do sympathize with you on this point. David Jebb was mean to you
(even if you did provoke it, and even deserve it). And superficially at least, it
does seem like there is an arbitrary power held by the Flight Director, without
sufficient due process to appeal or overturn such decisions. But your arguments are
flawed:

1. There is really no due process concern, since a revocation of flight privileges
at the gliderport does not deprive a pilot of flying in any way at any other site
-- even other local sites. Also, if the City feels the Flight Director has abused
his power by consistently revoking flight privileges without good cause, it could
initiate proceedings and ultimately even find the Flight Director/Concessionaire
in breach of the lease. So this seems to be mostly just your sour grapes, and not
really a problem in practice.

2. No organization has the authority under its charter (that I'm aware of, anyway)
to dictate to the Flight Director and reverse his decisions on revocation of
flight privileges. At best, the Soaring Council (or other potential body) can act
as a place to air complaints and even recommend solutions (which I actually think
is a good idea, and I would be happy as concessionaire to listen to
recommendations at such a forum, and have it be a place for pilots to state their
concerns about having flight privileges revoked) -- but not veto or power to
dictate a decision.

3. The current structure of the gliderport operation does not allow for any other
body to veto/override Flight Director decisions. City ordinance states that an
Airport Director has the authority to restrict flight operations for good cause,
and the lease specifically states that the Concessionaire is the Flight Director
at the gliderport. But more practically, the concessionaire must insure and also
indemnify the City from any liability. So if the concessionaire, acting as Flight
Director, cannot revoke flight privileges for someone deemed unsafe, then it would
find itself in the position of having to pay to insure, and be held potentially
liable for, a person's negligent conduct with no way to control that risk. The
Flight Director/concessionaire could not control its own risk, but would still be
stuck paying if the shit hit the fan. Thus, the entire system of insurance and
indemnification breaks down, the concessionaire will be forced to refuse to accept
liability, and -- you guessed, the park would be closed to all flying.

The End (is near).

I've typed waaaay more than most people want to read/need to know. Bottom line, if
the City wants to budget and pay for its own independent Flight Director, and also
pay for its own insurance, and accept its own liability, and pay for all its own
permitting, etc. -- then the Concessionaire (I, or whomever follows me) can afford
to be just one more business among many, competing with all tandem instructors (and
other businesses) at the gliderport, and accepting the decisions of an independent
Flight Director or the Soaring Council or whomever ultimately controls flight
operations. No problem. If that's your ultimate objective -- then have at it. Of
course, the City budget being so strong, that's likely to happen any day now, right?

No? It seem the only realistic and practical way to accomplish your plan, Bob, is
for you to give the City a millions of dollars to make all that happen. Put up, or
shut up, Bob.

Those who can, fly. Those who can't, blog about flying! Here's hoping the Spring
winds let us all spend more time flying, and less time at a computer!

Robin

Robin, thanks for posting your side. I may yet have to make a trip to Torrey, if only to meet you. You answered the questions BK refused to acknowledge.

You do realize that by the time Bloviator King finishes quoting you for his misdirections that the server will crash?

But, thanks anyway.

I think Bob should sue for defamation.

With his settlement he could outbid you in your proposed Section 5: Option 2.

Why should there ever be a state granted monopoly without an auction in the first place?

That's what the RFP (request for proposal) does. It's a bidding process.
Jay Devorak has the monopoly on the storage bins. Depending on his agreement with the SHGA, he may raise rent, charge for improvements or even confiscate gliders for non-payment. He receives a percentage of the rental proceeds in return for administering the system for the club.

It sounded to me as if that is how Robin came into this business. Probably, as Jay did, with no competing bids.

As Robin states, OP, you could team up with BK to enter a competing bid and run Torrey in whatever fashion you wish, keeping in mind the San Diego government's benign[\i] oversight. Knock yourselves out.

Hello Robin,

I'm going to start by simply saying that I disagree with almost all of your previous two postings. If I had the time, I might go through them sentence by sentence and show you (and everyone else) where you are wrong.

But I'm not going to do that right now. I may go back and do it some other time, but instead, I want to refocus your attention on what I have wanted at Torrey since 2004 (six years now). We may actually find ourselves in agreement, and I hope you'll read this posting carefully and give it some thought. Thanks.

The biggest problem I've seen at Torrey (and you've agreed to a point) is that pilots have been treated unfairly there. In some cases that means they were thrown out without just cause. In other cases it means that the minimum rating systems are unfair. In still other cases, it has meant that two pilots doing the same thing (landing on the beach, for example) are treated differently depending on whether they're liked or not. I think you'll agree that all of these have happened in the past (to one degree or another).

Now what I've worked for, and the reason many people support me (it's surely not my personality ) is to establish some sense of fairness at Torrey. That's what I want. I want fairness for ALL pilots.

Fairness means that if you're going to charge someone $25 (or $35) to fly an "outside tandem" (the term used in the lease), then you have to charge everyone $25 or $35 to fly an outside tandem. You can't just arbitrarily decide to charge someone $100. Are we in agreement here?

Fairness also means that there needs to be a process for review of suspensions. David Jebb kicked David Beardslee out for life and he kicked me out for a year. In neither case would he even give a written reason when one was requested. Of course we know why he couldn't give a written reason - because then it could be proved wrong. You are correct to say that was in the past, but I have to bring it up because we need a mechanism to see that it isn't repeated in the future. We need a mechanism that's stronger than Robin saying he'll be nice. We need a mechanism that will stand up under ALL concessionaires - including you and David Jebb. That's my number one goal here - to ensure that no one else has to go through what Dave Beardslee and myself (and many others) have had to endure at Torrey. Are we in agreement on this one too?

Fairness also means recognizing that there are times when H3 pilots can fly safely at Torrey. I am happy to see that this is being addressed with the new training program. But that needs to be formalized into some kind of rating system that can be objectively administered so that all qualified pilots can enjoy flying at Torrey. I would suggest an H3 rating with a few appropriate special skills, a signoff from an instructor, and a site introduction by an instructor who has flown Torrey in the last 90 days.

But most of all, fairness means having fair representation. The ideas I've listed are just a small subset of what pilots might want to suggest for THEIR city park. We need a formal mechanism for pilot's wishes to be conveyed to the concessionaire (you in this case) and to the City so that the park actually serves its purpose as a city-owned flight park. We need a formal way for the pilots as a whole to voice their preferences through an official body that is recognized as serving that function in the lease. If that is done, then all the other issues (like $100 tandem fees, due process for pilots, and H3 rating requirements) can be worked out between the pilot groups and the concessionaire with the City being updated by that advisory body. If we can do that - where ALL sides are represented - then we will have established a mechanism for fairness that will hold up no matter who owns the concession. That's my biggest goal of all, and that's the one vision that has motivated me for at least the past 3 years.

Now here's my big question for you Robin. Are you willing to embrace a model where some body (either the Soaring Council, or the Advisory Board, or some other pilot group) - with fair representation for all pilots (even pilots you may not like) - plays an advisory role in advising both you and the City of San Diego on the proper and fair operation of the Torrey Pines Gliderport? If you are really committed to that idea and are willing to work toward that goal, then we might find ourselves working together. I would like to see that.

Now you've levied a lot of conjecture against me, and I'm willing to let it slide for now with the blanket statement that you're just plain wrong in your assessment of my actions and my motives. Your next move will tell me whether I was right to let it slide or if I've wasted my time with this particular message. My hand is out to you, Robin. It's your move.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski

P.S. Thanks to the pilots of Sylmar for the use of your forum for these discussions. I hope they bear fruit, and I hope you'll find yourselves coming to Torrey more often as a result of what we might work out here on your "neutral territory".

I was looking to see similarities with the way “non-whites� were treated on private golf course country clubs years ago until political pressures forced equality on most. Since the government regulates the sport(site) they should see to it that there is no discrimination.

Excerpts from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_club
In many jurisdictions, such discriminatory requirements are now prohibited, but in others, such policies are still legal or are subject to specific circumstances.[2] In some cases, lawsuits have forced clubs to drop discriminatory policies.

The Augusta National Golf Club, where the Masters Tournament is played, is one of the best-known clubs that does not admit women. In September 2008 Katon Dawson left Forest Lake Club after a twelve year membership because it still has a whites-only restriction.[4]


If these issues cannot be laid to rest then possibly taking it to the city and the political process might work. Putting fliers on every windshield at Sea world and other popular tourist destinations outlining the city sponsored discrimination of hang gliders while making colorful comparisons to discrimination of the past might get some results. Its best to handle the issue quietly on a small scale rather than a larger scale where the results will be unpredictable.

I think its ok for a hang or paragliding school to be passionate about what they do. You have to be in order to teach the sport. I once read the definition of passion was love and hate at the same time.




JT,

I was putting together a bid to manage the storage containers a few years ago and at rates 30-50% below the current mgt fees. Being a master of computer automation my plan was to pay online by credit card mostly. The deal killer for me was the amount the banks would get for the transaction fee, so I backed off. Maybe after the cat incident I will pursue it again.


Hang Gliding 0.000001%

Bob Kuczewski wrote:Now here's my big question for you Robin. Are you willing to embrace a model where some body (either the Soaring Council, or the Advisory Board, or some other pilot group) - with fair representation for all pilots (even pilots you may not like) - plays an advisory role in advising both you and the City of San Diego on the proper and fair operation of the Torrey Pines Gliderport? If you are really committed to that idea and are willing to work toward that goal, then we might find ourselves working together. I would like to see that.

I posted that on March 31st, and Robin never answered. Of course, the election is over now and Robin doesn't care about Sylmar anymore than he did before he needed your votes.

JT and Barton, I'm disgusted by your behavior. I had written more, but the backspace key has spared you. I'll just say that some of the most embarrassing episodes in human history were carried out by people behaving as you have behaved.

For the rest of the Sylmar club, you should be very grateful that you actually have a club (and not a concessionaire) overseeing your flying site. I offer my thanks to everyone in the club who has worked to keep the SHGA alive. I look forward to flying with you again soon.

Thank you for the compliment, Bob.
(I'm keeping things short so you won't use up so much space with your inevitable reply-quote)

JT and Barton's posts on this recall have been consistent with the concept that all people hate Bob as much as they do. They've also been consistent with the concept that the Internet is this magical, anonymous place where you can spew all kinds of hate and childish comments without repercussions in the real world, in terms of what others think of you.

I'm not saying that's for sure the case, it's just how I've come to understand behavior like this on this otherwise friendly forum for a club I respect greatly.

Bob's a good guy and very helpful and a good friend of mine. Thanks, Bob, for trying so hard to improve hang gliding in Region 3 and for representin' outside of San Diego.

edited 6.2018

Bob as I told you on the crestline forum no need to go on any further with any problems you might have . Anybody else that is asking reasonable questions I will do my best to answer.

Just change "Britney" to "Bob" and everything's cool w/ Chris Crocker!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc[/youtube]

Barton,

Your quote below is full of innacuracies. Rather than challenge them directly, I'd like to just ask where you got each bit of information in your post. I believe you were not present at ANY of the incidents you mention, but yet you post as if you are an authority. Please list where you got each bit of information that you've posted. Thanks.

JT, if you don't like this topic, please don't click on it. That's why a forum has many topics. There are people who like to follow politics and hear both sides. Please don't continually disrespect those people (and myself) with your attempts to bury what you don't like.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

barton wrote:Robert,

I can understand you needing to find person to slay, someone who is responsible, someone to vent your anger towards, if that needs to be me, so be it. Before you call me cruel, let’s look at a few things.

I am not the one who didn’t follow the rules at torrey, which earned you a time out period. Not the first time a pilot has been removed from a flying site and probably will not be the last. Sad to say, but it is true. I have been flying at torrey for 15 years and never have I been put in “recess� let alone denied flying privileges.

I am not the person that had confrontational episode with the San Diego Lifeguards.

I am not the person who went ballistic on the San Diego mayor.

I am not the person that has been banned from a forum relating to your tirade of how you were mistreated by David Jebb. David is gone now, torrey is a better place and you are still whining about a mistake you made by disrespecting the rules and the Flight Director, not as smart move. You are a big boy now, get over it.

I am not the person that has attacked any difference of point of view with a barrage of confrontational post. Your word to word ratio against any other persons on any forum you have spammed is ~ 864.9856726:1, now that is bandwidth abuse.

I am not the person who attacked the national organization because he could not vote on a committee that he was not a part of.

I am not the person that is attacking another person's business for an action that was not his. Your campaign has been a very direct personal attack on a person’s livelihood, a personal vendetta against a person that is no longer involved with a site, but wanting to take it out on whoever is present. Do you understand just how wrong that is, both socially and from a moral standpoint? How can you do that?

I am one person out of ~ 500 for the region, I am not the person that started the recall effort, but once I heard that it was started, all I could do was join the campaign to remove a threat to the sport both on a regional and a national level.

I am one person of the majority in region 3 to say that we do not want you representing my sport, my thrill which is my very being. I/ We see you as a threat and have taken action as our bylaws dictate.

I would suggest that you take a breather, I have heard how tired you are and cannot be the “man on point� any longer due to your weariness, take the moment for what it is and go refresh yourself. Once your numbness wears off you will start to see the world in a better perspective.

barton

Barton! Please, oh, please, of please! Int the interest of sanity, DON"T RESPOND!

You know how hard it is to get rid of mold in you shower once it gets started and bleach doesn't seem to work anymore.

Barton! Please, oh, please, of please! In the interest of sanity,

DON"T RESPOND!

You know how hard it is to get rid of mold in you shower once it gets started and bleach doesn't seem to work anymore.

It might be a good time ta bury the bloody hatchetts (and I don't mean in Bob).You Boys get along now ,....Go fly. Except you Barton you goin to da Beach.ta see Greg.He can help you with those landing issues ,....Really. H5

OMG!!! OMG!! remember the time we, like, went hang gliding? and we went UP? and we FLEW? and we were so HAPPY? and we posted about it on the FORUM?

PLEEEEEEEEZE!! no more f***ing political harangues! seriously!

SERIOUSLY!!! JT worked for HOURS to get rid of political bullshit--that's what facebook is for! can't THIS forum just be about how much fun it is to FLY?

please???

Hi JC , I flew today and it was wonderful. I appreciate JT working hard to help us all move forward too. The one thing we should know about the peace we now have is a new policy at Torrey for high hour hang 3's also with a possible letter from their instructor. The new policy if I remember correctly allows a one time fee of $190 to be paid which allows the student to return and fly and train free(daily use fee) for up to 30 days and or until signed off to fly there. This is wonderful news.

I'm sure nmerider and Ronaldo will have some flight stories about today.
Hey I lost my glider bag Doh!!!